An interesting feature of this convention was the introduction, for the first time, of the discussion of tile ditching by machinery in a paper prepared by Hon. F. Plumb, of Streator, Ill. Mr. Plumb has been experimenting for several years with tile ditches, using both animal and steam power. He gave it as his conclusion that the machine of the future would be a machine that would perfect the ditch by one passage over the ground. He has perfected and is now manufacturing a steam power machine, at Streator, Ill., which is spoken of very highly by all who have seen it at work in the field. Mr. Plumb claims that the machine will cut twenty rods of three-foot ditch in an hour, and give a grade and finish to the bottom of the ditch equal to the very best hand work. The capacity of the machine is varied to any depth up to four feet, and for any sized tile up to nine-inch. Two men can operate the machine. The cost of cutting ditches, laying and covering tile is reduced to about ten cents per rod. He has already sold several of his machines, and is to be congratulated on the success he has attained in securing a good tile ditcher. We can conceive of no one thing that will conduce to the sale and use of tile so much as such a machine as the Plumb Steam Tile Ditcher. The machine is indorsed by C. G. Elliott, of Tonica, Drainage Engineer; by Mr. Pike, President of the convention, and others who have seen it at work in the field.
LAYING TILE BY MACHINERY.
There was nothing among the devices exhibited at this convention that attracted more attention or received more favorable private comment than a model of Chamberlin Brothers' Patent Apparatus for Tiling. The model only was shown, but working machines are in operation in Iowa, and they are giving excellent satisfaction, as attested by such men as Thos. B. Wales, Jr., of Iowa City, and Daniel H. Wheeler, Secretary of the Nebraska State Board of Agriculture. The apparatus is upon the old principle of the mole ditcher requiring the same capstan power. One team is sufficient to run it. The apparatus is composed of a beam or sill, horizontal in position, and a coulter seven feet long at the rear end of the beam, and perpendicular to it a spirit level attached to the beam, aids in regulating. The coulter can be run anywhere from one to five feet deep. The front end of the beam is provided with a mud or stone boat to prevent sinking in the mud, and with a jack screw for regulating on uneven ground. Attached to it, and following the mole, is a carrier 200 feet long, made concave in form. On this the tile are laid and carried into the ground. A start is made at an open ditch or hole of required depth; when the carrier is drawn in full length a hole is dug just back of the coulter, two by three feet, down to the tile, a stop placed in front of the tile, the machine is started which draws the carrier from under the tile, when it is again located as before, and so on. Different sized moles are used according to the size of the tile to be laid. Any one can easily count up the advantages of this mode of laying tile, provided the machine can do the work it is claimed to do, and of this there seems to be no question, if we may believe the testimony of those who have seen it in operation.
DRAINAGE LAWS.
The following by Senator Whiting, of Bureau county, was read by the Secretary:
Illinois is a good State as nature made her, and drainage is destined to add wealth almost inestimable. Drainage enterprises are everywhere seen—in extent from the small work beginning and ending in the same field, to the levees of Sny Carte, and the canal-like channels through the Winnebago swamps. Drainage is naturally divided into two classes:
1. Individual drainage, where the land-owner has his own outlet independent of others.
2. Combined drainage where one can not drain without joining with others.
The smallest of these combined works is where two only are concerned. The Hickory Creek ditch now in progress in Bureau and Henry counties is thirteen miles long, has a district of about 15,000 acres, owned by over seventy-five persons. This combined drainage partakes of the nature of public works. For this class the constitution has been twice amended, and many elaborate laws have been enacted. These laws have had their vicissitudes, and are not yet free from complications. The first drainage legislation commenced forty years ago, by a special act, to drain some wet lands near Chicago. In 1859 two special acts were passed for lands on the American bottoms. In 1865 a general act was passed. All these enactments were under the constitution of 1848 which was silent on drainage, and the courts annulled most of these as unconstitutional. In 1870 the new constitution was framed containing a brief provision on drainage. The late Mr. Browning, a leading member of that convention, drafted a drainage bill which was enacted into a law without change. Large enterprises were organized and got well started; but again some complaining person appealed to the courts, and this law too, was declared too big for the constitution. The constitution was then enlarged to meet if possible, the views of the court. Two elaborate laws on the main question were passed in 1879, and these with several amendments since made rest undisturbed on the statutes. One of these is generally known as the "levee law," and the other as the "farm drainage act." They cover nearly the same subject matter, and were passed to compromise conflicting views. These laws relate to "combined drainage." "Individual drainage" was not discussed. As the law does not undertake to define how deep you may plow or what crop you shall raise, so it was thought unnecessary to make any provisions about the drainage of your own land.
Court Decision.—To the public surprise the Appellate court at Ottawa in two decisions pronounced individual drainage unlawful. As this decision is notable, and the subject of controversy, its history should be known. In 1876, Mr. C. Pilgrim, of Bureau county, laid about sixty rods of two-inch tile up a slight depression in his corn-field, discharging the same under a box culvert in the public road. This depression continued into a pasture field of Mr. J. H. Mellor, of Stark county, about eighteen rods to a running stream. Mr. Mellor sued Mr. Pilgrim for trespass, and the case was twice tried successively in the circuit courts of Stark and Bureau counties. The juries each time decided for Mr. Pilgrim, but the Appellate court each time reversed the decision; and finally worried Mr. Pilgrim into yielding to a judgment of one cent damages. The material part of that decision is as follows: